We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
I answered that after one large Cuba Libre. Time for a Cuba Libre chaser.
As tonight’s time stamps wear on, I’d be expecting a little less coherence in my answers. 😀
Using the process of steam electrolysis, water degenerates into H and O at 2,500C. It is worth noting that is much hotter than 400C. This process is much more energetic (but more efficient) than straight traditional electrolysis and is accomplished by adding steam energy to supplement the electrical energy in splitting the bonds. In traditional electrolysis the smallest amount of electricity necessary to electrolyze one mole of water is 65.3 Watt-hours (at 77° F; 25 degrees C) but this varies due to temperature and pressure.
And that is all I can say about that, but I hope it shines some light on this issue.
Robert said:
“What kind of temps are required to get the steam to separate into hydrogen and oxygen? What is the source of that heat?”
If steam is passed over hot iron the following (exothermic) reaction takes place:
3Fe(s) + 4H2O(g) –> Fe3O4(s) + 4H2(g)
The hydrogen product would then be free to react with oxygen. I couldn’t find a reference with a cursory search, but if I recall correctly, a temperature of 400 C is sufficient to catalyze this reaction (most sites just say ‘hot’). Since the rubble pile was continuously sprayed with firehoses, steam was easy to come by.
Slarti,
What kind of temps are required to get the steam to separate into hydrogen and oxygen? What is the source of that heat?
Bob,
Yes, I got that too and thank you very much. It’s been a really weird day and your words were most helpful. I am composing a reply but I may have to finish it tomorrow. What we were talking about offline has been a hot topic here today and I think that smell I keep smelling might be neurons catching fire. I just can’t think about it anymore tonight. In fact, I have a date with a bottle of whatever the Hell I can find here in a minute. Yeah, it’s not a solution, but neither is not sleeping for a week.
As to the CSI comment, I agree completely. It’s a piece of a larger puzzle. It’s just a piece that will be limited in resolution (in the data sense of the term) absent new information. It still has utility in seeking justice.
Careful with that cold and snow. That’s serious winter you’ve got.
Bob said:
“but I do know that assuming steel falling from a maximum height of 415 meters, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, will melt upon impact –[is per se unreasonable].”
Quoting myself:
“Yes it is. And I have never said otherwise.”
Bob said:
“It is an analytic truth that you said the foregoing. The concept of the predicate is contained within the concept of the subject (i.e. your theory of collapse). I don’t need to go outside your theory of collapse to find the foregoing; it’s part and parcel of your theory, just as the predicate ‘unmarried’ is part and parcel of the the subject ‘bachelor.’
You got your 17.4% (and whatever you changed it to thereafter) by ASSUMING the force of gravity accelerated the steel to a sufficient velocity to create enough Ke upon (inelastic) impact to melt it; or, as you stated earlier, 900,000 joules.”
I have never, in this entire thread, suggested that the steel beams of the WTC were melted by the KE of impact. I have said that this could have contributed to melting them (which it could, since it adds heat). In fact, the biggest delta-T I have suggested for iron via the force of impact is about 20 degrees C. All I have said is that ‘natural’ processes could have led to molten steel (the KE of impact is really all about general heat in the rubble pile – it added a lot, and it is not credible to thinks that there could have been enough explosives in the building to significantly increase it).
These are all things that I believe could have added thermal heat to the structural steel of the WTC before, during, and after the collapse.
1. Kinetic energy from the plane impact – this kinetic energy mostly became thermal energy just as the KE in the descending rubble did.
2. Multi-fuel fires in the impact zone – fires certainly would have added heat to the steel and the fact that there were many different substances burning opens the door to synergistic effects that would allow them to burn hotter that single-fuel fires (hot enough to melt steel – probably not, but hotter than you would calculate from a single-fuel fire).
3. Shearing/Bending during the collapse – For me, this is the prime suspect for melting energy. When a steel beam is bent, the kinetic energy used to bend the beam is transformed into thermal energy in the beam via internal friction i.e. while the beam is being bent, it is also being heated. Since steel loses strength as it gets heated this is a likely explanation of why failure occurred at lower energies than Robert calculated. There were steel beams bent into the shape of horseshoes in the collapse – this requires a lot of energy, hence generating a lot of heat in the steel. (And incidentally, steel will liquify on impact, you just have to drop it from 100 km up or so…)
4. Kinetic energy from impact – This may have raised the temperature of some steel by 20 degrees and certainly added an enormous amount of heat to the rubble pile.
5. Multi-fuel fires in the rubble – same as above.
6. Exothermic reactions in the rubble – If steam is passed over hot iron, the iron oxidizes in an exothermic reaction resulting in triferric oxide and hydrogen gas. (This was used as an industrial process to make hydrogen.) Given that there was unquestionably hot iron in the rubble and that the rubble was constantly being sprayed with fire hoses, this reaction seems almost certain to have occurred. Additionally, the hydrogen gas produced would have reacted with oxygen to produce more thermal energy. I tried to find reaction rates and energy produced for this reaction but had no luck. There were also likely other exothermic reactions in the rubble.
I believe that all of these sources of thermal energy together provide a better explanation (in the sense of Occam’s razor) than the theory that additional heat from explosives was required. While explosives being used to sever structural supports to aid the gravitational collapse cannot be ruled out (though I consider it unnecessary and highly unlikely) the magnitude of explosives that would have been necessary to have significantly raised the temperature of the debris pile (before or after impact) is so improbable as to be impossible. To match the thermal energy contained in the debris pile due to the gravitational collapse of the building, 100 metric tons of TNT would need to be used. According to Wikipedia, Octanitrocubane is the most powerful non-nuclear explosive and it’s about 2.7 times as powerful as TNT. As for thermic material, per Wikipedia:
“As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort”
While I agree that thermitic residue in the rubble should be investigated, I don’t think that there is any cause for speculation about explosives or incendiaries unless it can be shown that the residue could not have resulted from other causes, especially in light of the main ingredients (plus a lot of free energy) being abundant in the collapse.
Bob, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not an idiot. I also tend to very carefully qualify what I say. While I may make a mistake from time to time, if you think I’m saying something stupid, you’ve probably misunderstood me.
Finally, If a bullet weighing 19.44g were fired at a muzzle velocity of 830 m/s through a vacuum into a stationary target, enough kinetic energy would be turned into thermal energy in the bullet to raise it’s temperature roughly 500 deg C if it were made of steel (which is the only metal I had the thermal properties of). This neglects the energy in the shockwave transmitted through the target – which was on the order of 1% of the total in the WTC collapse, and the energy that went into deforming the target (which becomes thermal energy in the target). In finding this data I did note that at a range of 3,000m, the bullet would have slowed from 830m/s to 208-248m/s (depending on the drag model), so Bob was right about the friction (which is why I specified vacuum above), although friction would be a negligible effect if the gun were fired 1m from the target.
It’s cold in here.
Will check back later.
Buddha,
The email I sent this afternoon?
Buddha: “We can establish just about everything about this except culpability beyond that of the hijackers. It’s almost like looking at the Big Bang. You can only follow the causation so far back and then? We run into the threshold. Not where conventional physics fail as in cosmology, but the threshold of provable fact relating to actors. We can say there is no batter, but we cannot say who hit the ball instead. Not enough evidence.”
Buddha,
This isn’t an episode of CSI; the collapses of buildings are simply a piece of the larger mosaic.
Vincent Bugliosi: “When prosecutors present their circumstantial case against a defendant, they put one speck of evidence upon another until ultimately there is a strong mosaic of guilt.”
Another theme running through this mosaic is
Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit – He who flees judgment confesses his guilt.
It narrows; especially when you get to the “that couldn’t happen without access to classified information” parts.
Robert: “I understand Slarti’s conclusion to be that there was enough energy to melt the steel, not that he had determined that it was the source of the molten steel. I don’t agree with Slarti’s conclusion (mostly because it lacks the mode of operation), but I don’t think he took it as far as you are claiming. Like most criminal investigations, just because you can establish means, motive, and opportunity, that doesn’t prove guilt.”
Robert,
His entire theory is predicated upon the fall to earth created an inelastic collision with enough velocity to convert that Pe to AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF KE so as to continue on as heat energy via his inelastic impact.
All of his numbers are predicated upon the the impact being powerful enough to melt the steel.
Furthermore, the mere existence of an immense amount of Pe doesn’t warrant any assumption that it will naturally convert to heat energy.
How much PE is stored in Hoover Dam? If the dam broke and all that PE flooded the valley below; would the rushing water spark fires?
Seriously…. wtf?
Done and done. Mission accomplished.
Buddha,
This is not a duplicate message mr. computer…
Check your email.
A Troll retreat out in the woods with Bubba
Bob,
Exactly. And I think Robert is on to why I said irrelevant. We can establish just about everything about this except culpability beyond that of the hijackers. It’s almost like looking at the Big Bang. You can only follow the causation so far back and then? We run into the threshold. Not where conventional physics fail as in cosmology, but the threshold of provable fact relating to actors. We can say there is no batter, but we cannot say who hit the ball instead. Not enough evidence.
Bob,
I understand Slarti’s conclusion to be that there was enough energy to melt the steel, not that he had determined that it was the source of the molten steel. I don’t agree with Slarti’s conclusion (mostly because it lacks the mode of operation), but I don’t think he took it as far as you are claiming. Like most criminal investigations, just because you can establish means, motive, and opportunity, that doesn’t prove guilt.
Buddha: “How the ball gets to the plate is irrelevant. It’s the home run – the order from the chaos – that matters. There are millions of paths that lead to fouls and outs, but only a few that lead to home runs. Why’d we get a homer?”
Don’t you think that question is implicit in my demand for an explanation about the molten steel? Every time someone attempts an answer they bring in the symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage as well as the free fall speed of said collapses as givens. It’s like Wile E Coyote running off a cliff and not realizing he’s suspended in mid air about to drop. Of course it’s a home run; the key is to make sure your opponent realizes he’s arguing there was no batter. Asking how the molten metal appeared and stayed for six months necessitates discussion of three miraculous collapses and is thus tantamount to asking how the baseball came to life and decided to leave the park.
Slartibartfast: “Bob said:
“but I do know that assuming steel falling from a maximum height of 415 meters, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, will melt upon impact –[is per se unreasonable].”
Yes it is. And I have never said otherwise.”
It is an analytic truth that you said the foregoing. The concept of the predicate is contained within the concept of the subject (i.e. your theory of collapse). I don’t need to go outside your theory of collapse to find the foregoing; it’s part and parcel of your theory, just as the predicate ‘unmarried’ is part and parcel of the the subject ‘bachelor.’
You got your 17.4% (and whatever you changed it to thereafter) by ASSUMING the force of gravity accelerated the steel to a sufficient velocity to create enough Ke upon (inelastic) impact to melt it; or, as you stated earlier, 900,000 joules.
24″ with drifts between 5-9 f’n feet.
Will check back later
Bdaman:
what have you been up to? you havent posted for awhile at least as Bdaman.
Hope all is well in “Trollsville”.
Buddha,
Thank you.
It kind of got buried in the high post volume yesterday, but I thought that your discussion of the more rigorous logic that you and Bob use vs. ‘The Method’ (I really like that term) was dead on. I do use the word ‘reasonable’ frequently and I do it mainly for the reason you suggest.
Here is a link to Buddha’s post. I’m referring to the paragraph beginning ‘The Elastic Question…’
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-99205
p.s. Due to other matters which require my attention, I will have little or no time to post for the next day or so, but I’ll be back tomorrow evening to continue this discussion…